If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"When Petrosian won at the start he tended to be accused of sharp practice
by the vociferous Fischer lobby - see Curaçao 1962 and Havana 1966. I
explain in the book why this was unfair. I think Fischer's abandonment of
chess from 1973 - 1992 was far worse than anything Petrosian may have done."

Kennedy: To take the devil's advocate position, reading GM Jan Timman's
Curaçao 1962 it's hard to believe that the whole thing was nothing more than
Fischer's case of sour grapes...

Keene: My proof is that Fischer was taking short draws as well but no-one
before our book seems to have spotted this!!

Keene played Petrosian twice, and says "In our first game he did forget to
press his clock, in severe time trouble. I pressed it for him..."

The interview also covers the Soviet collusion scenario, perhaps adding
further perspective to it.

Keene: My proof is that Fischer was taking short draws as well but no-one
before our book seems to have spotted this!!

Perhaps no one has spotted this because it is not true? What is
Keene referring to when he says "Fischer was taking short draws as
well"? Nothing in the tournament statistics suggests Fischer's
involvement in any "gentleman's agreement" at all like what is now
known to have existed between Petrosian, Geller and Keres. Looking at
just the first cycle at Curaçao 1962:

On Jul 2, 8:44 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:14 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I recommend an interview between Chessville's Rick Kennedy and Ray Keene -
where RK asks RK about his new book 'Petrosian vs the Elite'.http://www.chessville.com:80/Editori...ithkennedy.htm
Keene: My proof is that Fischer was taking short draws as well but no-one
before our book seems to have spotted this!!

Perhaps no one has spotted this because it is not true? What is
Keene referring to when he says "Fischer was taking short draws as
well"? Nothing in the tournament statistics suggests Fischer's
involvement in any "gentleman's agreement" at all like what is now
known to have existed between Petrosian, Geller and Keres. Looking at
just the first cycle at Curaçao 1962:

Totals: +1 =6, avg. moves per game 35; avg. moves per draw 30.
Petrosian takes 4 quick draws in 7 games, averaging only 19 moves in
his games with co-conspirators Geller and Keres.

I really would like to know what Keene had in mind. He does not cite
any factual support in the interview, as far as I saw.

After using a database to get the full statistics, I am more
perplexed than before at GM Keene's claim that Fischer, like
Petrosian, was also taking many short draws at Curaçao 1962. I can
find no support for this. The data:

So again, I really would like to know what Keene had in mind that
supports his claim. Petrosian drew 68% of his games to Fischer's 43%,
in 14 fewer moves per game. 46% of Petrosian's games were quick
"grandmaster draws" while Fischer did this only 11% of the time.
And it is an established fact that Petrosian was the instigator of
the gentleman's agreement at Curaçao 1962, arrived at *before* the
tournament ever started, that he, Geller and Keres would agree to
short draws in all their games with each other.
So I ask, with all due respect, what, please, is GM Keene thinking
of here?

I really would like to know what Keene had in mind. He does not cite
any factual support in the interview, as far as I saw.

** I am not sure whether to credit this desire on the part of Taylor
Kingston with much weight, since the last time he 'really wanted to know'
something about Keene's writing, he declined to ask him directly when
encouraged to do so, and when Ray Keene actually showed up here to see for
himself how much Kingston wanted to know, Kingston's desire didn't exactly
register on the Richter-scale.

**Secondly, I wonder if Taylor Kingston has ever written a review of a book?
Since he has confused Ray Keene with the writer/editor of the interview with
his, "He does not cite". -- clue, the reviewer chooses what to
include/exclude from an interview

**Thirdly, Let us presume that this Fischer question is not resolved by the
lack of citation in Rick Kennedy's interview. But it is, after all, an
interview to do with a BOOK -- and Wowa! Does anyone think it might be in
there?

**Some reviewers have actually taken to reading these chess books to
determine what's in 'em )

I really would like to know what Keene had in mind. He does not cite
any factual support in the interview, as far as I saw.

** I am not sure whether to credit this desire on the part of Taylor
Kingston with much weight, since the last time he 'really wanted to know'
something about Keene's writing, he declined to ask him directly when
encouraged to do so, and when Ray Keene actually showed up here to see for
himself how much Kingston wanted to know, Kingston's desire didn't exactly
register on the Richter-scale.

**Secondly, I wonder if Taylor Kingston has ever written a review of a book?
Since he has confused Ray Keene with the writer/editor of the interview with
his, "He does not cite". -- clue, the reviewer chooses what to
include/exclude from an interview

**Thirdly, Let us presume that this Fischer question is not resolved by the
lack of citation in Rick Kennedy's interview. But it is, after all, an
interview to do with a BOOK -- and Wowa! Does anyone think it might be in
there?

**Some reviewers have actually taken to reading these chess books to
determine what's in 'em )

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:11:47 -0700, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
So I ask, with all due respect, what, please, is GM Keene thinking
of here?

I can remember a later game from another event, where Fischer took
one short draw, I believe in fewer moves than event regs specified,
and when queried, said something like, "those rules were made for
Soviet cheaters".

Sorry I can't be more precise about this anecdote, but maybe it will
jog someone's memory. Anyway, it was another event at a later time,
that much I'm sure of.

Mike Murray wrote:
I can remember a later game from another event, where Fischer took
one short draw, I believe in fewer moves than event regs specified,
and when queried, said something like, "those rules were made for
Soviet cheaters".

Keene's words, `Fischer was taking short draws' imply a certain
habituality (otherwise, you'd say `Fischer took some short draws')
and the single game you allude to isn't enough to support such a
statement.

On Jul 2, 8:44 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
Keene: My proof is that Fischer was taking short draws as well but no-one
before our book seems to have spotted this!!

Perhaps no one has spotted this because it is not true? What is
Keene referring to when he says "Fischer was taking short draws as
well"? Nothing in the tournament statistics suggests Fischer's
involvement in any "gentleman's agreement" at all like what is now
known to have existed between Petrosian, Geller and Keres. Looking at
just the first cycle at Curaçao 1962:

The quote of GM Ray Keene (a man who claims to be
the world's foremost expert on chess and mind sports)
above does not mention anything about gentlemen, or
about agreements. What it does mention is short draws,
as fits well with just one of the following games; see if you
can spot it:

Yup. Here it is. The rules of chess do not allow for
draws of a mere twenty-five moves, except where BF
and TP may have engaged in a record-setting swap
off of pieces and pawns never before seen at this
level of play! As there are 32 men altogether, at a
rate of one capture per move -- not counting the first
two moves apiece where this is neigh well impossible
-- that still leaves quite a few men in play when the
cease-fire was negotiated. No, wait -- poor math; by
this measure, every man on the board would be gone,
including the Kings(??!), after move 18. Strike my
"record-setting" comment. These guys are just
*ordinary* draw-mongers.

Round 7: defeats Keres in 40 moves

The dog! I'd give my right memory chips to just once
defeat someone like GM Keres like that.

Totals: +2 -3 =2, average moves per game, 43; average moves per draw
41.5. Where are all the "short draws" Bobby was supposedly taking?

Good point. I counted (using the handy Windows
calculator feature) only one such draw, and amusingly,
it was against one of the accused "cheaters". Does
this imply that GM Fischer actively participated in the
conspiracy to prevent him from winning, as of course
he ought to have, being already a legend in his own
mind.

The only one is with Petrosian.

I conclude that Ray Keene, a world renowned expert
on practically everything who cannot possibly be wrong,
must have meant that he detected a certain drawing
tendency on the part of GM Fischer in other games as
well, not just this one tourney.

Totals: +1 =6, avg. moves per game 35; avg. moves per draw 30.
Petrosian takes 4 quick draws in 7 games, averaging only 19 moves in
his games with co-conspirators Geller and Keres.

An interesting choice of words here; the deliberate
choice of "conspirators" implies something devious,
no? I wonder if there is any admission, anywhere
by the participants that their mutual agreement was
intended to actually cheat anyone. In any case, the
rules of chess are supposed to prevent *everyone*
from doing this kind of thing, whether agreed in
advance or not. And the arbiters are supposed to
enforce the rules of chess, so that everyone is
competing on an equal footing.

I really would like to know what Keene had in mind. He does not cite
any factual support in the interview, as far as I saw.

Um, "Keene" and "fact" may legally not be used in the
same sentence without and intermediating separator, to
prevent cross-contamination. Not that anyone cares if
RK is further contaminated, but facts must be protected
if any are expected to survive and one day perhaps, be
removed from the endangered species list.

Surely, the great genius Ray Keene must have been
referring to some other games, not just the mere seven
in the Curacao tourney. My proof is in his choice of the
plural, as in "draw*s*", but no one before me has spotted
this. I am thinking of writing a book about this... .

On 02 Jul 2007 16:46:42 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
I can remember a later game from another event, where Fischer took
one short draw, I believe in fewer moves than event regs specified,
and when queried, said something like, "those rules were made for
Soviet cheaters".
Keene's words, `Fischer was taking short draws' imply a certain
habituality (otherwise, you'd say `Fischer took some short draws')
and the single game you allude to isn't enough to support such a
statement.

Sure. And we all know that Fischer rarely took short draws, usually
fighting to the end even when the result was already determined. And
I specifically mentioned that the single game took place in another,
later event. So, I wasn't necessarily defending Keene. But Fischer
*did* take 'em occasionally, and if my anecdote is accurate, did so at
least once with the attitude that the regs did not apply to him.

On Jul 2, 9:11 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
I really would like to know what Keene had in mind. He does not cite
any factual support in the interview, as far as I saw.

The quote given by IM Innes said that the incredible Ray
Keene explains this *in his book*.

After using a database to get the full statistics, I am more
perplexed than before at GM Keene's claim that Fischer, like
Petrosian, was also taking many short draws at Curaçao 1962.

No, that is not in the quote. Read it again. The amazing
GM Ray Keene said only that GM Fischer "was taking
draws", not that this happened in that same tourney. This
is a very fine distinction, and one which requires the mind of
a true genius to ascertain. Hence, few apart from the
fantabulous GM Ray Keene and I have been able to figure it
out.

I can find no support for this.

Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places?

In the original post by IM Innes (a world-class player
in his own right), one very subtle hint was given when
the world's foremost expert on everything hinted as to
where the treasure might be found. I don't want to spoil
the plot, but after long hours of decrypting the language,
I can say with certainty that Keene's new book "plays a
significant role".

So again, I really would like to know what Keene had in mind that
supports his claim. Petrosian drew 68% of his games to Fischer's 43%,
in 14 fewer moves per game. 46% of Petrosian's games were quick
"grandmaster draws" while Fischer did this only 11% of the time.

The exact percentage is not of any great import when
it comes to matters of principle. Either one deliberately
tramples the rules of chess, or else one does not. Such
distinctions as "which cheater is better or worse", may
well be left to be determined by wardens, who must deal
with issues of overcrowding, and which cheaters to keep
in or release on probation back into the pool of active
players.

Crazed left-wing liberals have even gone so far as to
suggest allowing players to determine *for themselves*
when they may or may not agree to a draw, but such
people are dangerous, and ought to be locked up right
along with the cheaters.

And it is an established fact that Petrosian was the instigator of
the gentleman's agreement at Curaçao 1962,

Perhaps I may be accused of picking nits, but true
"gentlemen" do not make such agreements, since
doing so would obviously compromise the fairness of
competition -- a fairness which has been attempted to
be spelled out in the published rules of the game. The
crude, unrefined laws of chess do not allow for the
agreement to a draw before a "real contest" has begun.

arrived at *before* the
tournament ever started, that he, Geller and Keres would agree to
short draws in all their games with each other.

Any fool can see that this sort of agreement unfairly
victimizes any other real contender, which in this case
points squarely to GM Kortchnoi. What can be done?